Re: clumsiness of pcall() syntax and how we deal with it

[Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@...>]

2015-04-28 19:35 GMT+02:00 Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@trms.com>:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2015-04-28 18:53 GMT+02:00 Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@trms.com>:
>>
>>> I currently believe that an integrated macro library, written with the
>>> same wisdom and care that Lua was authored with, is the most exciting
>>> possibility for future Lua.
>>>
>>> It is vaccination the inevitable death march towards Language
>>> Bloat.[2]  Lua has avoided this thanks to the development model.
>>> However, perhaps PUC/Rio could ensure their legacy by providing us
>>> with macros before they retire. :)
>>
>> They have. They gave us a string library and an LPeg module,
>> plus a "load" function. Exercise for the reader: exploit these to
>> write a "define" function.
>>
>
> DONE! LuaMacro. (not entirely, but mostly) You didn't read my first
> footnote. Which means that you also did not read my second footnote,
> which makes me sad, because I'm trying to turn it into Starks's Law,
> once I've developed the CSCI Chops to have laws attributed to me. I'm
> dreaming large, Dirk.

Humanity is split into two groups: those who read [1] footnotes,
and those who don't.

[1] Though reading a footnote is not the same as understanding [2]
all its implications.

[2] Actually, I did understand Footnote 2 and thought of replying
"Latin".